Ansori Wibowoˡ, Arif Wibowo SEˡ
ˡManagement Department, Faculty of Economics, Yogyakarta State University
Postal Address 55281
Email : [email protected]ˡ, [email protected]ˡ
Abstract
Comparative advertising is often used in the United States of America but not in Asia. Contradictions of comparative advertising to the culture and avoids direct confrontation often used to explain its’ phenomenon. Hence further studies are needed to strengthen the evidence of antecedent and consequences for comparative advertising. This study was aimed to investigate whether comparative advertising provides a better change in consumer attitude as well as brand loyalty and explore mediating effect of product attributes on those relationships. Results of this study show that, attitude toward the Ad, attitude toward the brand, purchase intention are significantly become antecedents of comparative advertising. Further consequences of comparative advertising are shown at product attributes and brand loyalty. Product attributes are significant for mediator on comparative advertising and brand loyalty relationship.
Key words: Comparative Advertising, Product Quality Attributes, Brand Loyalty
!"#$ %!
As competition in world markets intensifies, an increased use of comparative advertising, where permitted, appears inevitable. Recent studies examine comparative advertising in a cross7cultural context. However this issue that heretofore has mostly been neglected.
Donthu’s (1998) study of cross7country differences in recall of and attitude toward comparative advertising yielded for several reasons such as comparative advertisements were suggested to be more than non7 comparative advertisements, respondent’s nationality, negative attitude toward comparative advertisements than toward non7comparative advertisement and attitudes toward comparative ads were especially negative for respondents in countries where comparative ads have not been widely used.
Conceptually, comparative advertising is massage format in which a competing brand attacks another brand(s) in the marketplace by making in a direct or indirect comparison of one or more product attribute or benefit. Scholars (Cho 1996; Ki and Lee 2000; Lyi
argued from the position of relational marketing (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Johnson, 1999). The strategy implies attaining a series of intermediate objectives, such as higher perceived quality, and achieving satisfaction, greater commitment and confidence on the part of customers, as well as a final objective, which may enhance loyalty. Accordingly, developing long term relationships put marketing approach into practice such as attracting, maintaining and intensifying relations with the customer (Berry, 1983), and integrate the relational marketing process into their strategic plans (Evans and Laskin, 1994). However, few scholars investigate the impact of comparative advertising on brand loyalty and explain on how those constructs are related. Hence, this study was aimed to investigate the effect of comparative advertising on brand loyalty and explore mediating effect of product attributes on its relationship.
& % ' ( # ' ')%'* & ( " !+(, +
Brand Loyalty is a construct that has both attitudinal and behavioral element when defined as the biased (i.e., non7random) behavioral response (i.e., purchase) expressed over time by some decision7 making units with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, which a function of psychology 7 decision making, evaluative7 processes (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Measuring only one facet, that is, attitudinal on behavioral aspect, of brand loyalty, therefore, would result in measuring a spurious attitude (unstable attitudes that do not influence the subsequent behaviors) or a spurious behavior (internal behavior that are unstable and unpredictable). For this reason, several studies (e.g., Bloemer and Kasper
1995; Odin, Odin, and Valette7Florence
2001) have recently suggested the need for
understanding the difference between true loyalty and spurious loyalty. They argue that the true meaning of attitudinal aspects of brand loyalty has been lost in traditional brand loyalty research (Fournier 1998), because of indifferent operation of inertia and true loyalty. Stressing this, several distinguishers of moderator for true brand loyalty and inertia have been suggested (e.g., relative attitude: Dick and Basu 1994; Brand sensitivity: Odin, Odin, and Valette7 Florence 2001, and Blomer and Kasper
1995).
& & ")' %-% . //'$ %)'
'--Cultural characteristic are found to be directly reflect in advertising practice (Han and Shavitt 1994; Taylor, Miracle, and Wilson 1997). For example, advertisements within individualistic values were found to be more persuasive in U.S, whereas advertisements with collectivistic appeals were more effective with Korean. U.S advertisement were found to stress more individualism, self7 improvement, and
product benefit, whereas Korean
Advertising massage were more concerned about family, groups, and other people.
Alden, Hoyer, and Lee (1993) reported that collectivistic countries (Korea and Thailand)
had large number of humorous
comparative advertising. Conversely, highly individualistic, low context U.S consumers probably feel relativity more comfortable with comparative advertising. Accordingly effectiveness advertising become cultural based.
Lavidge and Steiner (1961) proposed three dimensions of effectiveness on ad are included Attitude toward the Advertisement (Aad), attitude toward the brand (Ab), and purchase intention (PI). Hence, this study extends for following hypothesis:
H1: Attitude toward Advertising, Attitude toward Brand, and Purchase Intention are significantly become antecedents of comparative advertising
& 0 1' ! $'2 !/ #(,% +
The literature contains abundant studies of quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml,
1988), reflecting the considerable complexity of the concept and the multiple dimensions into which it can be broken down (Garvin, 1987; Brucks et al., 2000).
Quality can, then, be defined in terms of the moment at which the consumer receives information or cues about the characteristics of the product while shopping for or consuming it (Becker, 2000). Consequently, when consumers form a value judgement as to their quality perceptions, it becomes necessary to break the concept of quality down into two major groups of factors Intrinsic and Extrinsic attributes (Zeithaml,
1988).
According to Olson and Jacoby (1972), intrinsic attributes are specific to each product, disappear when it is consumed and cannot be altered without changing the nature of the product itself. Extrinsic attributes are aspects that are related to the product but are not physically a part of it, such as its name or the brand image. These
are also known as image variables. They differ from the product itself but are strongly associated with it and should be considered in any evaluation of its characteristics. Other authors, such as Erickson et al. (1984), have argued that image variables may include the brand, the price, the support of well7known authorities or the region of origin.
Following literature review concerning the concepts of Comparative advertising, Intrinsic and extrinsic attributes propose a model sets out for analysis and ground the relationships that may be established. Researchers found that intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes are address on perceived risk (Calvo, 2001), consumer trust (Bredahl et al., 1998), on consumer satisfaction (Hansen 2005), and on consumer loyalty (Krystallis and Arvanitoyannis, 2006) as well as on the framework Comparative Advertising. However, question are addressed to comparative advertising included evoke counter7argumentation and be discounted by consumers as being less than entirely truthful (Gorn & Weinberg, 1984; Swinyard,
1981). Based on literature, therefore formulation of following hypothesis:
H2: Comparative advertising significantly reinforce to Intrinsic and Extrinsic Attribute
its own specific geography and climate, tradition and know7how (Calvo, 2001). The results of Fandos and Carlos (2006) study in the food industry reveal the existence of a positive and significant relationship between the intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes of the product and the loyalty expressed by consumers. The extending hypotheses are:
H3 : Intrinsic Attribute effect to brand loyalty
H4 : Extrinsic Attribute effect to brand loyalty
Advertising and brand loyalty are known to have mutually beneficial relationship. In found on literature Raj (1982) that the loyal users of a brand increased their volume purchase in responses to increased advertising, while non loyal users did not increase their purchase in spite of the increased advertising. According to Smith and Swinyard (1983), advertising can influence the formation of brand loyalty by establishing source credibility and setting up a predisposition for favorable usage experience, which would have an effect on subsequent purchases. Other literature that includes the relationship the between comparative advertising and brand loyalty (Deighton 1984). Fandos and Carlos (2006) are indicate that intrinsic attributes has a positive and significant effect on the consumer’s loyalty, extrinsic attributes is positively and significantly associated with loyalty. Accordingly this study tests the following hypotheses:
H5 : Intrinsic Attribute mediate the
relationship between comparative
advertising and brand loyalty
H6 :Extrinsic Attribute mediate the
relationship between comparative
advertising and brand loyalty
Model of study
Intrinsic Attribute of Product Quality
Extrinsic Attribute of Product Quality
Comparative Ad Brand Loyalty
H2 H1
H2
H4 H3 H5
H6
0 ' 1!"
0 (32,' ( " ( %$%2(
-Extra Joss is an energy drink product. -Extra Joss Ad contains the comparative advertisement. The ad compares the benefits of Extra Joss product of its main competitor product, Kuku Bima Energy. A total of 220 Indonesian product customer used as respondent spread based on the age classification participated in research. Age classification is grouped base on demographics advertising age of Dobrow (2006). A total of 70 out of 220 gave wrong in fulfilling control variable; they are excluded from the analysis. This process resulted in a final sample of 150 participants.
0 & '(-# '
Following exposure to the ads, subject responded to multiple item scale assessing Attitude Toward the Ad (Aad), Attitude Toward The Brand (Ab), and Purchase Intention (PI), Brand Loyalty, and Product Quality Attributes. Respondents were asked to indicate levels of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements based on a 57point Likert scale.
Comparative advertising questionnaire developed by (e.g. Putrevu and Kenneth
reverse coded as needed to match anchors with their appropriate valence.
Product Quality Attributes questionnaire adapted from Fandos and Carlos (2006). Data were obtained using a structured questionnaire containing closed questions to investigate perceptions of product such as flavor, bouquet, color and aroma for intrinsic attributes, and place of origin, traditional product image for extrinsic attributes.
Brand Loyalty adapted from 5 items questionnaire developed by Kim J., Morris, and Joffre (2008). Sample of question is “The brand name is the first thing I’m looking at for the purchase of this product category”.
4 '-#,
This study was conducted involving confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Overall measurement of model fit was assessed with four indices: the
χ statistics; the comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990); the goodness7of7fit index (GFI, Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 1988); and rootmean square error of approximation (RSMEA, Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the mediating and moderating effect proposed in this study. Pertaining to the measurement model, CFA result yielded support for the 57factor model, indicating the distinctiveness of the four constructs in this study. The chi7square/df value was 2.37 significantly lower than 3 and fit for model (χ= 560.62, df =237, p <0.01; CFI = 0.96, RFI=0.93, NFI=0.94, GFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.070).
Second ordered model of comparative advertising fit showed The chi7square value was 2.49 significantly lower than 3 and fit
for model (χ = 102.1, df =41, p <0.01; CFI = 0.98, RFI=0.95, NFI=0.96, GFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.070).
The model of fit showed that The chi7square value was 2.41 significantly lower than 3 and fit for model (χ= 588.43, df =244, p <0.01; CFI = 0.96, RFI=0.93, NFI=0.93, GFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.071). It is found that comparative advertising has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty (β= 0.75), comparative advertising has a significant positive effect on Intrinsic Attribute (β= 0.81), comparative advertising has a significant positive effect on Extrinsic Attribute (β= 0.51), Intrinsic Attribute has a significant negative effect on brand loyalty (β= 70.15), Extrinsic Attribute has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty (β= 0.20), whereas Attitude Toward Ad (β= 0.48), Attitude Toward The Brand (β= 0.88) and Purchase Intention (β= 0.88) has positive effects on comparative advertising.
Mediation effect analysis (table 2) showed that beta values of each independent variable become decreased (Attitude Toward Advertising β=0.313**, β'=0.201** and
β=0.313**, β'=0.187**; Attitude Toward The Brand β=0.585**, β'=0.492** and
β=0.585**,, β'=0.503**; Purchase Intention β=0.485**, β'=0.345** and
β=0.485**, β'=0. 395**; comparative advertising β=0.572**, β'=0.482** and
β=0.572**, β'=0.485**), and the are increase significantly (Attitude Toward Advertising = 0.132** and =0.101**; Attitude Toward The Brand = 021** and =0.047**; Purchase Intention = 0.029** and = 0.074**; comparative advertising = 0.014* and =0.031**) when mediators of intrinsic attribute and
the relationship between Attitude toward Advertising, Attitude toward The Brand, Purchase Intention, and comparative advertising, and brand loyalty. Accordingly hypotheses 5 and 6 are supported.
5 %-$#--%! ( " ! $,#-%!
The theoretical framework of comparative advertising (Swinyard, 1981) support to increase brand loyalty. Hence, this result strengthens previous findings (e.g., Raj,
1982; Smith and Swinyard, 1983). The construct of comparative advertising are proofed on three dimension included Attitude toward the Advertisement (Aad ), attitude toward the brand (Ab), and purchase intention (PI). This finding consistent to previous investigations (La Tour and
Rotfeld, 1997). Intrinsic attributes of the product have clearly negative influence on Brand Loyalty. With regard to extrinsic attributes, the consumer may conceive of the product influence brand loyalty variable. Thus, when consumers perceive the image of the product, the region of origin, or other such attributes, these will positively influence their feelings and affects, generating true loyalty towards the products (Fandos and Carlos, 2006). Comparative advertising are found significantly affected to Intrinsic and Extrinsic Attribute. Both intrinsic and extrinsic product quality are successfully mediate the between comparative advertising toward brand loyalty.
1. ! " !#$ !#"%
2. ! !$ & ! #$'' !# &
3. ! " !"## ! %%'' !"&$'' !$&%
4. ( ! !"% !$) '' !# "'' !$#$'' *
5. ! $ !"&& ! +)'' !)&)'' !" "'' !"%)'' !# % 6. , ! + !"## ! "+'' ! )"'' ! "'' !&& '' ! ""'' !"+%
7. - - !$# !$$% ! '' !)##'' !&#$'' !)$&'' !& $'' !& ''
. / %% 0( α - '' 1%!% 2 ' 1%!%)!
,33 3 ,
( 4 -
-,
( ( ( (
5 6
( ! %$ ! %$ ! # !%## !%+" !%++ ! %# !%+" ! % ! %$ ! % !%## !%## !%++ !%+$ %!%+"' %!%+)' 6
! ( %! '' %! % '' %! '' %! #$' '
! %!)#)'' %!&+ '' %!)#)' ' % !) % ''
! %!&#)'' %! &)'' %!&#)'' %! +)''
&! ( %!)$ '' %!&# '' %!)$ '' %!&#)''
)! %! # '' %! $ '' %! %'' %! &#''
"! , %! & ' ' % ! '' %! #"'' %! +"''
6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The findings of this study are subject to several limitations. Hence it is necessary to further research to refine, strengthen, and even discover new findings. The research was conducted only for one type of product. To be able conclusions a wider then these findings should be tested on more than one product. Use of other products besides energy drinks product will be able to strengthen understanding us all of how consumers evaluate a comparative advertisement toward brand loyalty.
The type of product i.e., product of energy drinks, are classified as low involvement product. It will be interesting to conduct
further research by analyzing the use of
comparative advertising in high7
involvement products. Different uses of comparative advertising effect on brand loyalty become attractive to be investigated.
Variations in comparative advertising can be used to know the limits of consumer tolerance on different types delivery comparative advertising. The research in this regard would be helpful to know the comparative advertising like what is acceptable by consumers.
This paper is presented in AISCT Taiwan 2011
'/' '
$'-[1] Alden D L, Hoyer W D, and Lee C (1993) Identifying global and culture7 specific dimension of humor in advertising : A Multinational Analysis. Journal Of Marketing 57(April): 647 75.
[2] Anderson J C, and Gerbing D W (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A Review and Recommended Two7Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103, pp. 411–423.
[3] Berry L L (1983) Relationship marketing, in Berry L L, Shostack G L, and Upsay G (Eds), Emering Perspectives on Services Marketing. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 257 8. [4] Becker T (2000) Consumer perception of fresh
meat quality: A Framework for Analysis. British Food Journal, 102(3): 158776.
[5] Bentler P M (1990) Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, pp. 238–246.
[6] Bloemer Jose M M, and Kasper Hans D P (1995) The Complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 16(2): 3117 329.
[7] Bredahl L, Grunert K. G, and Fertin C (1998) Relating consumer perceptions of pork quality to physical product characteristics. Food Quality and Preference 9(4), pp. 273781.
[8] Brucks M, Zeithaml V, and Naylor G (2000) Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 359774.
[9] Calvo D (2001) Analysis of quality and perceived risk in the buying decision7making processof food
products. Doctoral Thesis, University of La Corun ˜a.
[10] Cho Jun7 Keun (1996) The Effect of comparative vs non7 comparative advertising on attitude change and their casual relationship. Kwang ko yun ko, 33(winter): 1657 197 in Korean.
[11] Choi Yung Kyun, and Miracle G E (2004) The Effectiveness of comparative advertising in Korea and The United States. Journal of Advertising 33( 4): 75.
[12] Deighton J (1984) The Interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal of Consumers Research 11(12): 7637 770.
[13] Dick Alan S, and Kunal Basu (1994) Customer loyalty: Toward an conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2): 997 113.
[14] Dobrow L, Hanas J, and Tenser J (2006) Birth712 lifecycle, 13717 lifecycle, 18734 lifecycle, 35754 lifecycle and 55+ lifecycle. American Demographics Advertising Age: 12721.
[15] Donthu N (1998) A Cross7country investigation of recall of and attitude toward comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising 27(2): 111–122. [16] Erickson G M, Johansson J K, and Chao P (1984) Image variables in multi7attribute product evaluations: Country of Origin Effects. Journal of Consumer Research 11: 69479.
[17] Evans J R, and Laskin R L (1994) The relationship marketing process: a conceptualization and application. Industrial Marketing Management 23: 439752.
[19] Fournier S (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4): 3437 373.
[20] Garbarino E, and Johnson M (1999) The Different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63(2): 70787.
[21] Garvin D A, (1987) Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review 65(6): 1017 9.
[22] Gorn G J, and Weinberg C B (1984) The Impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: some positive findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2): 719–727.
[23] Hansen T (2005) Understanding consumer perception of food quality: the cases of shrimps and cheese. British Food Journal 107(7): 500725. [24] Han S P, and Shavitt S (1994) Persuasion and
culture : Advertising appeal in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 30: 3267 350.
[25] Jacoby J, and R W Chestnut (1978) Brand loyalty : Measurement and management, New York : John Wiley.
[26] Johnson J (1999) Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: Managing the inter firm relationships as a strategic asset. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(1): 4718. [27] Jo¨reskog, K G and D So¨rbom (1988) LISREL 7:
A Guide to the program and application (SPSS Inc., Chicago).
[28] Ki Wha Suh, and Seung Y Lee (2000) The Effect of the degree of comparativeness and credibility of a massage source on comparative advertising effectiveness. Kwang ko yun koo 46(Spring): 1757 195 (in Korean).
[29] Kim Jooyoung, Morris Jon D, and Swait Joffre (2008) Antecedents of true brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising (37)2: 106.
[30] Krystallis A, and Arvanitoyannis I S (2006) Investigating the concept of meat quality from the consumers perspective: the case of Greece. Meat Science 72(1): 164776.
[31] La Tour M S, and Rotfeld H J (1997) There are threat and (maybe) fear caused arousal: Theory and confusion of appeals to fear and fear arousal itself. Journal of Advertising 26(3): 457 59.
[32] Lavidge R J, and Steiner G (1961) A Model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 29(10): 597 62. [33] Lyi D R (1988) An Experimental study on the effectiveness of comparison advertising. PhD Dissertation, Hanyang University.
[34] Machelit K A, and Wilson R D (1988) Emotional feelings and attitude toward the advertisement: the roles of brand familiarity and repetition. Journal of Advertising 17(Fall): 277 35.
[35] Odin Y, Odin N N, and Valette7Florence P (2001) Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: An Empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 53(2): 757 84.
[36] Olson J, and Jacoby J (1972) Cue utilization in the quality perception process, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.): Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 167779.
[37] Parasuraman A, Berry L, and Zeithaml V (1985) A Conceptual model of SQ and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49: 41750. [38] Putrevu S and Lord K R (1994) Comparative and
non comparative advertising: Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement condition. Journal of Advertising 23(2): 83. [39] Raj S P (1982) The Effect of advertising on high
and low loyalty consumers segments. Journal of Consumers Research 9(6): 777 89.
[40] Smith R E, and Swinyard W R (1983) Information response models: an integrated approach. Journal of Marketing Research 20(7): 2577 267.
[41] Swinyard, W R (1981) The Interaction between comparative advertising and copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research 18(2): 175–186. [42] Taylor C R, Miracle G E, and Wilson R D (1997)
The Impact of information level on effectiveness of U.S and Korean television commercials. Journal of Advertising 26(1): 1715.
[43] Vandenberg R J and C E Lance (2000) A Review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3(1): 4–70. [44] Zeithaml V (1988) Consumer perceptions of price,
